Random phonology/phonemic inventory thread [2011–2018]

[Xing]

Retroflex consonants - like other postalveolars - can be formed with a variety of passive POA's (from the alveolar ridge to the hard palate) and tongue shapes (laminal, apical and subapical).

According to the Wikipædia articles on postalveolar and retroflexe consonants, it seems like the defining features distinguishing [ʂ], [ʃ] and [ɕ], is that [ɕ] is fully/strongly palatalised, [ʃ] is partially/weakly palatalised, and [ʂ] is non-palatalised.

The retroflexes are also characteristically below the alveolar ridge.

Retroflex consonants, like other coronal consonants, come in several varieties, depending on the shape of the tongue. The tongue may be either flat or concave, or even with the tip curled back. The point of contact on the tongue may be with the tip (apical), with the blade (laminal), or with the underside of the tongue (subapical). The point of contact on the roof of the mouth may be with the alveolar ridge (alveolar, the area behind the alveolar ridge (postalveolar), or the hard palate (palatal).

[Darkgamma]

Retroflex consonants - like other postalveolars - can be formed with a variety of passive POA's (from the alveolar ridge to the hard palate) and tongue shapes (laminal, apical and subapical).

According to the Wikipædia articles on postalveolar and retroflexe consonants, it seems like the defining features distinguishing [ʂ], [ʃ] and [ɕ], is that [ɕ] is fully/strongly palatalised, [ʃ] is partially/weakly palatalised, and [ʂ] is non-palatalised.

The retroflexes are also characteristically below the alveolar ridge.

Retroflex consonants, like other coronal consonants, come in several varieties, depending on the shape of the tongue. The tongue may be either flat or concave, or even with the tip curled back. The point of contact on the tongue may be with the tip (apical), with the blade (laminal), or with the underside of the tongue (subapical). The point of contact on the roof of the mouth may be with the alveolar ridge (alveolar, the area behind the alveolar ridge (postalveolar), or the hard palate (palatal).

I don't see how retroflexes might be alveolar if not still curved back. They'd still be further back than alveolars.

[Xing]

More from good 'ol Wikipædia (for those who choose not to look up the page by themselves)

The main combinations normally observed are:
Laminal post-alveolar, with a flat tongue. These occur, for example, in in Polish cz, sz, ż (rz), dż and Mandarin zh, ch, sh, r.
Apical post-alveolar, with a somewhat concave tongue. These occur, for example, in Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages. (Hindi has no retroflex sibilants, although some of the other Indo-Aryan languages do.)
Sub-apical palatal, with a highly concave tongue. These occur particularly in the Dravidian languages. These are the dullest and lowest-pitched type, and when following a vowel often add strong r-coloring to the vowel, sounding as if an American English r occurs between the vowel and consonant.
Apical alveolar, with a somewhat concave tongue. These occur, for example, in peninsular Spanish and Basque. These sounds don't quite fit on the front-to-back, laminal-to-subapical continuum, with a relatively dull but higher pitched sound.

[Darkgamma]

More from good 'ol Wikipædia (for those who choose not to look up the page by themselves)

The main combinations normally observed are:
Laminal post-alveolar, with a flat tongue. These occur, for example, in in Polish cz, sz, ż (rz), dż and Mandarin zh, ch, sh, r.
Apical post-alveolar, with a somewhat concave tongue. These occur, for example, in Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages. (Hindi has no retroflex sibilants, although some of the other Indo-Aryan languages do.)
Sub-apical palatal, with a highly concave tongue. These occur particularly in the Dravidian languages. These are the dullest and lowest-pitched type, and when following a vowel often add strong r-coloring to the vowel, sounding as if an American English r occurs between the vowel and consonant.
Apical alveolar, with a somewhat concave tongue. These occur, for example, in peninsular Spanish and Basque. These sounds don't quite fit on the front-to-back, laminal-to-subapical continuum, with a relatively dull but higher pitched sound.

My Wikipædia page on retroflexes' open

[Chagen]

It's common sense to assume that "Dddddddddd" is not an acceptable syllable in Gskcar. Because it's unpronouncable.

Difficult, but not impossible to pronounce. Just make and ordinary /d/, and hold it about 10 times longer.

Actually, a native Gskcar would instinctivly pronounce "Dddddddddd" as a huge amount of /d/s. In a row. Without stopping to breathe.

[Darkgamma]

It's common sense to assume that "Dddddddddd" is not an acceptable syllable in Gskcar. Because it's unpronouncable.

Difficult, but not impossible to pronounce. Just make and ordinary /d/, and hold it about 10 times longer.

Actually, a native Gskcar would instinctivly pronounce "Dddddddddd" as a huge amount of /d/s. In a row. Without stopping to breathe.

That would make it [dədədədədədədədədəd] at best, and [d.d.d.d.d.d.d.d.d.d] if you be lucky

[Chagen]

If there's no vowels in the word, then the word is not supposed to be pronounced with vowels. At all. Inserting a vowel in there at all is incorrect in all Gskcar dialects.

[Xing]

If there's no vowels in the word, then the word is not supposed to be pronounced with vowels.

[Xing]

If there's no vowels in the word, then the word is not supposed to be pronounced with vowels. At all. Inserting a vowel in there at all is incorrect in all Gskcar dialects.

But you can pronounce a series of d's (or other plosives) with a release phase to each d, as opposed to pronouncing them as a long, outdrawn d.

[Chagen]

What I meant was that if a word has no written vowels, then it must be pronounced as one massive consonant cluster. No exceptions. Even one vowel to ease the pronounciation is wrong. Suck it up and pronounce those 26-obstruent clusters...

[Darkgamma]

What I meant was that if a word has no written vowels, then it must be pronounced as one massive consonant cluster. No exceptions. Even one vowel to ease the pronounciation is wrong. Suck it up and pronounce those 26-obstruent clusters...

Insta-labeled KSL

[Chagen]

Okay, the chance of a 26-Obstruent cluster is rare, but it's technically possible.

[Darkgamma]

Okay, the chance of a 26-Obstruent cluster is rare, but it's technically possible.

Not that, but the sheer illogicality
There's no pattern or anything to what you've mentioned.
Even Salishan language phonotactics (even though unknown) are neither rabid nor random

[taylorS]

Okay, the chance of a 26-Obstruent cluster is rare, but it's technically possible.

Look up the Salishan languages up on Wiki, they are a language family spoken my some Native Americans of the Pacific NW and they have some words with wicked clusters and no vowels.

[thetha]

Nuxálk has plenty of words without vowels but I've noticed it has none without fricatives from what I've seen (as long as you consider aspiration to be an underlying /h/), which leads me to believe fricatives phonologically pattern as continuants in the languages. For example, we have the word sc̓q, pronounced [st͡sʼqʰ]. The way I see it, this word could be interpreted as having one or two syllables, with /s/ and/or /h/ as a syllable nucleus.

[Trailsend]

Nuxálk has plenty of words without vowels but I've noticed it has none without fricatives from what I've seen (as long as you consider aspiration to be an underlying /h/), which leads me to believe fricatives phonologically pattern as continuants in the languages. For example, we have the word sc̓q, pronounced [st͡sʼqʰ]. The way I see it, this word could be interpreted as having one or two syllables, with /s/ and/or /h/ as a syllable nucleus.

How much data have you looked at?

[Darkgamma]

Nuxálk has plenty of words without vowels but I've noticed it has none without fricatives from what I've seen (as long as you consider aspiration to be an underlying /h/), which leads me to believe fricatives phonologically pattern as continuants in the languages. For example, we have the word sc̓q, pronounced [st͡sʼqʰ]. The way I see it, this word could be interpreted as having one or two syllables, with /s/ and/or /h/ as a syllable nucleus.

You might quite be on to something here.

[thetha]

How much data have you looked at?

A moderate amount. I haven't looked at tons, but I'd say I'm familiar enough with it.

[eldin raigmore]

In a single syllable it's hard to find a natlang that allows consonant-clusters longer than four consonants or vowel-clusters longer than four vowels.

In a single word it's hard to find natlang that allows consonant-clusters longer than seven consonants.

The maximum consonant-cluster syllable structures seem to be either up to three consonants in the onset and up to four in the coda, or up to four consonants in the onset and up to three in the coda.

Some people may know of some natlang that allows more than that, but I don't.

Lots of natlangs, though, do allow syllables without vowels. Such syllables are almost always at most two phonemes long, though.

Consonantal nuclei (a.k.a. syllabic consonants) are usually sonorants; liquids or nasals. (Not semivowels, because if a semivowel were the nucleus it would be heard as a vowel instead of as a semivowel. Unless I'm wrong, of course.)
Consonantal nuclei that aren't sonorants are still mostly continuants, like fricatives.

That helps explain why Nuxalk (sp? I know it's wrong, I just don't know what's right) usually has a sonorant or fricative in its all-consonant syllables, and why IIUC most of its all-consonant syllables are rather shortish (am I right about that?).

But some people think even some 'lects of English allow stops as nuclei in some words, such as a syllabic /b/ in <probably>.

What would really be unusual would be for a click or an ejective to be a syllable nucleus.

[thetha]

You almost got it right, it's Nuxálk, with an acute. And I do believe most of the consonant-only syllables are short, you rarely see one more than three or four consonants, unless you abuse the affix system like they did to get that bunchberry thing.